Transitions to Sustainable Fashion - a Theoretical Essay

Abstract: The article aims to identify how multi-level perspective and theories of practice can be aligned to analyze the transitions to sustainability in fashion. The idea is to understand how transitions to sustainability are happening in wearing practices and in the fashion system.

1 Introduction Fashion is recognized by quick and constant changes, and these transformations stand out in the fast fashion, the business model that promotes cheap, fashionable and low-quality clothes and the consumption based on buy, use and discard. In this way, clothes arrive at the end of their lives faster and faster, becoming disposable and causing various environmental problems. In this perspective, sustainable fashion is a paradoxical issue, because fashion is based on consumption, change, and waste. However, Pookulangara and Shephard (2013) argue that there is the growth of a new movement: slow fashion. It seeks to mitigate the fashion life cycle by combining slow production and consumption, so the clothes last longer (Jung & Jin, 2014; Niinimäki & Hassi, 2011). Kozlowski, Searcy, and Bardecki (2018) argue that tools are needed to facilitate the transition to a more sustainable fashion system. Slow fashion is an alternative to this. Fletcher (2010) announces that slow fashion is an opportunity to start engaging with system-level issues in the fashion industry to begin a transition toward sustainability. Fashion and the textile industry are a relevant chain and understanding their dynamic processes of constant (re)innovation may allow them to develop strategies to increase their contribution to the transition to a more sustainable society. This transition represents the transformation of socio-technical systems with more sustainable production and consumption. Two approaches have been prominent in the study of transitions. The first is a multi-level perspective (MLP) that was developed to understand regime transitions, providing an overview of the multidimensional complexity of changes in sociotechnical systems (Geels, 2010; Geels & Kemp, 2007). For Geels (2002, 2010), the MLP distinguishes three levels: niches (locus for radical innovations); regimes (refer to cognitive routines shared by members of a technical community); and landscape (referring to aspects of technology in the exogenous environment). Geels and Schot (2007) argue that transitions occur through interactions between levels. It is noteworthy that niches are important because they provide places for learning processes, allowing to deviate from the rules in the regime, and space to build social networks that support innovations, allowing seeds to emerge for change (Geels, 2002, 2004). It is in the niches where the transitions start. Thus, under the lens of the MLP, we proposed that fast fashion represents the fashion regime, despite the constant changes in trends, there is a demand of the chain itself for the speed to remain. In the niches, there are slow fashion initiatives that try to influence the regime and the landscape. The MLP is a model that maps the transition (Geels & Schot, 2007), so it usually gives less attention to consumption process itself, so we understand that another approach is needed, in this case, the theory of practices. Halkier and Jensen (2011) argue that it is a useful approach to analysing the complexities of consumption and how it is embodied in the relationships between social reproduction and change. From the perspective of a wide range of theories of practices, people are involved in practices, that is, in actions, so they are practitioners involved in everyday practices rather than consumers (Røpke, 2009). The theory of practices applied to the consumption focus on what people “do” and “see”, patterns of consumption integrated into the social order of practices (Evans, Mcmeekin, & Southerton, 2012). Warde (2005) argues that consumption is a time in almost all practices. Thus, for Hargreaves (2011), the focus is not about individuals' attitudes, behaviours, and choices, but as practices are formed, reproduced, maintained, stabilised, challenged, and killed. In the theory of practices, new wearing practices can emerge from the elements of slow fashion. Thus, in this way, we considered how these practices emerge and are reproduced and how this affects the consumption of clothes. This article is a working paper, and we aim to identify how MLP and theories of practice can be aligned to analyse the transitions to sustainability in fashion. This paper is organized into six sections parts to reach it: this introduction; a section about the multi-level perspective; then one about the theory of practices; the fourth section is about intersections between multilevel perspective and theory of practices; following, fast fashion versus slow fashion; next section is about transitions to sustainable fashion; finally, we proposed some final remarks. 2 Multi-level Perspective (MLP) The MLP was created, according to Geels and Kemp (2007), to understand transitions and regime changes and its basic ontology stems from the sociology of technology. There are three important interrelated dimensions: socio-technical systems; social groups that maintain and refine the elements of sociotechnical systems; and rules (regimes) that direct the activities of social groups. Socio-technical systems consist of artefacts, capital, labour, regulation, user and market practices, supplier networks, infrastructure, technology, knowledge and cultural meaning, and do not function autonomously. They are the result of the activities of human actors. Therefore, only the activities of these actors can maintain or change systems (Geels, 2004a, 2005). The stability of sociotechnical systems results from the links between the heterogeneous elements that make up the system, and such elements and connections are the results of the activities of social groups that (re)produce them. So the activities of the different groups are aligned with each other and coordinates, forming trajectories since all follow the same paths (Geels, 2002). An important aspect of the MLP is the elimination of simple causality in transitions since there is not just one cause or a single driver. Instead, there are simultaneous processes at various dimensions and levels, and the transformations of the system occur when these processes bind and reinforce each other. Also, nonlinearity and uncertainty characterise transitions (Geels, 2005). According to Geels (2004b), the MLP is a conceptual combination of two types of explanations: external circumstances and internal drivers. External circumstances are the ongoing processes in regimes and landscapes that offer windows of opportunity for news. These windows emerge when tensions occur between elements in the regime, that is when the activities of social groups are misaligned. It means that transitions happen when there is insecurity in sociotechnical systems, so it is necessary to keep them stabilised through three types of rules (Geels, 2004a). Cognitive rules that make actors look in particular directions. Normative rules, which are social and organisational networks stabilised by perceptions of mutual roles and expectations of behaviour. Regulatory and formal rules, which represent established systems that can be stabilised by legal contracts. Besides these, the fourth type of stability is the alignment between rules, since it is difficult to change one rule without changing the others. Rules and regimes provide stability in guiding perceptions and actions. These rules tend to be reproduced and in this way are characterised as the deep structure, or grammar, of sociotechnical systems. In addition to the regime, according to Geels (2005), the MLP distinguishes two other levels, and there are dynamics of coevolution in each of them, and they generally remain relatively independent. However, these levels are not ontological descriptions of reality; they are analytical and heuristic concepts to understand the complex activity of sociotechnical change (Geels, 2002). In a later text Geels (2010) emphasises that the MLP is a framework for understanding transitions that provides an overview of the multidimensional complexity of sociotechnical system changes and distinguishes three analytical levels. Niches (locus for radical innovations); sociotechnical schemes, blocked and stabilised in various dimensions; and an exogenous sociotechnical scenario. Transitions are regime changes and occur through interaction processes within and between these levels so that they do not occur easily, because lock-in and path dependence characterise existing regimes and incremental innovation in predictable trajectories orient them. The term socio-technical regime is used to refer to the semicoherent set of rules of different social groups (Geels, 2002). Geels (2006) explains that the level of regimes has three interconnected elements: a network of actors and social groups; formal, cognitive, and normative rules that drive the activities of the actors; and material and technical elements (artefacts, machines, infrastructures). Schemes provide direction and coordination for the actors, enabling the stability of the system, but this stability is dynamic, because there is incremental innovation, leading to trajectories and path dependencies, resulting from stabilisation mechanisms (Geels, 2002, 2005, 2006). The alignment between the rules, according to Geels (2004a), is what gives stability to the regime and forces coordination of activities. The niches provide sites for learning processes, also, provide space to build social networks that support the innovations (Geels, 2002). In the niches, these social networks are small, the cognitive rules oscillate, there is little stability, and much uncertainty and the actors work in different directions, exploring different trajectories (Geels, 2005). Despite the apparent disorganisation, Geels (2004a) states that niches provide environments for the development of radical innovations by making it possible to distance the rules of the regime. Although the problems existing in the regimes orient the innovations that emerge in the niches (Geels, 2005). The technological paradigm are located in a socio-technical landscape, which consists of a set of deep structural tendencies and aspects of the broader exogenous environment (Geels, 2002, 2004a). The landscape refers, for example, to macroeconomics, deep cultural patterns, and macropolitical developments, beyond the direct influence of the actors and their changes, usually occur slowly (Geels, 2005). In this sense, for Geels (2004a), socio-technical landscapes provide an even stronger structuring of activities than regimes. According to Geels (2005), the problems of the regimes orient the work in the niches. Also, the key point of the multilevel perspective is that innovations occur through the interaction between dynamics at various levels. From this, several phases can be distinguished in the transitions (Geels, 2005), as Figure 1 indicates. In the first phase, the novelties emerge in niches in the context of the regime and the landscape. There is no dominant design, and several technical forms compete with each other. The actors improvise, participating in experiments to discover the best design and what the users want. The aim is to solve the problems of the regime. In the second phase, novelty is used in small niche markets that provide resources for technical expertise. Gradually, a dedicated community of engineers and producers emerges, directing their activities to improve further the new technology. To the extent that this community articulates new rules, the new technology develops its technical trajectory. And as users interact with and incorporate new technology into their practices, they accumulate experience and explore new features. This second phase results in a stabilisation of rules. The advance of the new technology characterises third phase, widespread diffusion, and competition with the established regime. On the one hand, there are internal drivers for the advancement of technology. On the other hand, the advance of it depends on external circumstances that create windows of opportunity. There are different types of circumstances: Changes in the level of the landscape that pressurise the regime; technical problems and negative externalities in the scheme, which can not be met with available technology; or changes in user preferences or stricter regulations that create problems for existing technology. The key issue is the interaction between developments at the various levels. As the new technology enters the conventional markets, it begins a competitive relationship with the established regime. In the fourth and last phase, the new technology replaces the old regime, and there are changes in the broader dimensions of the sociotechnical regime. It happens gradually because the creation of a new regime takes time. Furthermore, incumbent operators tend to retain old technologies because of their vested interests and the bottom line in irretrievable investments. The new scheme may eventually influence the development of the landscape. Figure 1 - The dynamics of the multi-level perspective in systems of innovations

Source: Geels (2005, p. 369). Briefly, Geels (2002) explains that the framework of sociotechnical regimes explains the stability of existing technological development and the occurrence of trajectories. The macro-level of landscape consists of external factors that slowly change, providing gradients to the trajectories. The micro-level of niches explains the generation and development of radical innovations. Thus, according to Geels (2004b), the (partner) logic of levels is that they provide different types of the structuring of activities in local practices. In the niches there is only a loose and loose structure, allowing experimentation; actors' activities go in many directions, there is no strong coordination; social networks are precarious, and the actors have to defend the niche and articulate the rules. In regimes, activities in local practices are much stronger. The rules are stable, with coordination effects on the activities of the actors. The rules guide perceptions, role expectations, and actions in social communities. It is possible to deviate from the rules, but this requires a lot of effort. Sociotechnical landscapes, in turn, provide an even stronger structure, since it is difficult to move away from widely shared material environments, beliefs, symbols, and cultural values. An important point of the multilevel perspective is that the success of the new technology is not only governed by processes within the niche, but also by developments in the regime and the landscape (Geels, 2002). Also, niche innovations can more easily break down the regime's barriers if the landscape creates pressures on the regime that lead to cracks, strains, and windows of opportunity. Subsequent struggles between niches and regimes and possible substitutions occur in multiple dimensions, such as markets or regulations, and are legitimised by interpretive actors who fight, negotiate, seek, learn, and create coalitions while navigating transitions (Geels, 2010).

3 Theory of Practices In the fields of Sociologie and Anthropologie emerge in the last fifty years a new approach to the social space focusing on the practices, i.e. not on the agency or on the structure, the so-called Theories of Practice. Also in Consumption Studies, these approaches have been supplying the theorist with a consistent explanation tool. The theory of practices is the systematisation of theoretical elements about social practices (Halkier, 2013, 2017). In it, practices are the social place, which implies that they are the basic ontological units of analysis (RØPKE, 2009), rather than individuals, social structures or discourses (Evans et al., 2012). According to Halkier (2013), Halkier, Katz- Gerro, and Martens (2011) and Kuijer and Jong (2009), in the processes of practical realisation of social life, these are the details and conditions under which normal activities, such as bathing or cooking are socially executed. Practices constitute individual actions and the social order, structures and institutions are created through them so that social life consists of a wide range of practices (RØPKE, 2009). Thus, they are built and sustained by practitioners who, by engaging in practices, normalise and sustain them (Axsen, 2012). For Halkier (2017), the legitimation of practices is carried out by individuals, but their patterns are not characteristic of the individual. Practice consists of activity flows coordinated by a configuration of understandings, procedures, and commitments, and these flows are continually made, re-done, and done in a slightly different way. Schatzki (1996) identifies two notions of practice: practices as an entity and as performance. The first notion is practice as a nexus of doing and saying. The second meaning, practice as performance, refers to the performance or execution of practices as entities. Reckwitz (2002) defines practice as a kind of routine behaviour that consists of several interconnected elements: forms of bodily and mental activities, things, and their use, knowledge, knowing how to do something, emotional states. In turn, Hargreaves (2011) states that because there is no unified practice approach, there is disagreement in the definition of what practices would be. He points out that some theorists focus on the various components or elements that make up a practice; others in the connections between these elements; and a third group in the position of practices as a bridge between the lifestyles of individuals and systems. According to Shove and Pantzar (2005), practices involve the active integration of materials, meanings, and skills. So artefacts have no value by themselves, only when integrated into practice and allied with the necessary forms of skill and meaning. In other words, it is the practice that matters and the emergence and extinction of them has to do with the formation and deformation of links between materials, images, and skills (the ingredients of any practice). Hargreaves (2011) explains this relation with an example: football involves a specific set of meanings (rules, the goal of the game and level of emotional engagement); skills (dribbling and kicking a ball); and materials (ball). The links between these elements are then (re) produced and maintained by skilled professionals in the course of a football game. Understanding social change is a matter of understanding how practices evolve, capture practitioners and lose them, who their transporters are, and how systems and practice complexes are formed and fragmented (Shove, 2012). According to Evans et al. (2012), processes of change are located at the organisational level of practices as entities and in the reproduction of practices as performance. It is because it is through a performance that the standard provided by the practice as an entity becomes significant and is reproduced, modified and sustained over time (Shove, 2012; Watson, 2012). Evans et al. (2012) suggest that focusing on practices as an entity emphasizes some stable elements that configure blocks and patterns of action (macro level) while focusing on performance practices highlights the production and reproduction of everyday actions (micro level). It is in this interaction between entity and performance where the dynamics of reproduction and change is localized. Change occurs in the reordering of elements through which practices as an entity are organized: change in the ordering of practices as entities lead to changes in how practices are performed. The reproduction of practices (as recognizable entities) is dependent on the practitioners continuing to perform them in particular ways, joining the various constituent elements in the course of their daily lives. Reckwitz (2002) elucidates that social order is a social reproduction, so structures of rupture and change must occur in daily crises of routines, in constellations of interpretive inter-determination and in the inadequacy of the knowledge with which the agent, practising a practice, is different situations. Over time, practices disappear when they can no longer recruit new practitioners to perform them (Røpke, 2009). On the other hand, according to Shove and Pantzar (2005), new practices consist of new configurations of existing elements or new elements together with those that already exist. From this point of view, the generation of new artefacts, images or skills not simply determine innovations in practice. What matters is how the constituent elements fit together. Also, innovations in practice require continuous reproduction. Transitions of practices cannot be fully planned, planned and managed (Evans et al., .2012). It is necessary to identify enlistment and desertion mechanisms and circumstances and to show how they relate to patterns of normalisation, destabilisation, and diffusion to trace the trajectories of specific practices (Shove & Pantzar, 2007). Southerton, Olsen, Warde, and Cheng (2012) emphasise the importance of understanding recruitment and abandonment, multiplying and diversifying practices, and commitment and enthusiasm of practitioners. Moreover, social change is not a process that occurs by manipulating and forcing human minds, but rather as a set of transforming social practices emerge, stabilise, and disappear as the connections between understandings, skills, and artefacts are formed and broken (Hargreaves, 2011, Strengers 2012). In turn, Watson (2012) argues that there are three fundamental mechanisms of change in any practice. First, the elements that make up the practice can change. Second, the population of practice carriers may change. Third, the way a practice encompasses other practices is significant for changes in the elements of recruitment practices and processes. Practising as an entity is a set of bodily and mental activities held together by materials, meanings, and competence, but by being made up of performances, practices are rooted in habits and routines (Jaeger-Erben & Offenberger 2014, Røpke, 2009, Watson, 2012). Evans et al. (2012) argue that while practices are performed routinely and habitually in space and time (and thus reproduced), practitioners can adapt, improvise, and experience ways of doing. The crucial point is that practices, as recognisable entities, are made by and through the reproduction of routines (Shove & Pantzar, 2005). For most people, most of every day occurs in a state of distraction, so that habit and routine are normal and represent the standard mode of engagement in the world (Warde, 2014). These habitual and routine actions, as Southerton (2013) notes, are observable performances and patterns of stable practices and the critical point becomes how such practice performances are held steady. Practices are considered recognisable entities over time and space and therefore support some degree of regularity and repetition, so practice theory focuses on routines in everyday life (Røpke, 2009). It is necessary to differentiate the theories of practice, which emphasise endogenous and emergent dynamics, from the social theories of behaviour, which focus on causal factors and external drivers (Shove, 2010). In the first, people figure as carriers of practices, while in the second they are autonomous agents of choice and change. For Shove (2010), these individual-centred approaches typically follow what is labelled the ABC model, in which attitudes are thought to direct behaviours that individuals choose. However, for practice theory, what people do is never reducible to attitudes or choices or anything individual. Instead, doing something is always a practice (Watson, 2012). In this sense, buying is only a way to acquire goods and services consumed in the course of practices (Røpke, 2009). For the author, although most practices involve appropriation and use of goods and services, people think of themselves as engaging in practices rather than engaging in consumption, so that consumption as such is rarely significant and does not make sense to say that people want to consume. Similarly, Warde (2005) says that consumption is a process in which agents engage in appropriation and appreciation, whether for utilitarian, expressive or contemplative purposes, of goods, services, performances, information or environments, bought or which the agent has some degree of discretion. Thus, consumption itself is not a practice, but time in almost every practice. So, as Halkier (2017) argues, practices imply, offer or invite consumption. Several authors explore how interest arose in applying the theory of practices to the analysis of consumption. According to Warde (2014), the theories of practice are an attempt to repair the failures of cultural analysis, which was hegemonic during the second period of consumer studies. They are attractive to the study of consumption because they promise to correct two dimensions: first, they provide an alternative framework for individual choice models; second, they discover and explore phenomena usually hidden in cultural analysis. That is, against the sovereign consumer model, the emphasis is placed on doing about thought, about the symbolic and practical material about expressive virtuosity in the self- formed presentation. Røpke (2009) argues that practice theory gives more importance to "doing," rather than to "having" consumption, and to use rather than product display. When people consider acquisitions, images of the actions in which the products are involved motivate them. Often, new things are acquired to induce new practices although, despite acquisitions, the imagined practices are not always realized. Focusing on individuals as practitioners rather than consumers implies that they use or consume resources and products while engaging in routine activities. This approach also implies that consumption patterns reflect the total of the practices in which they are involved; and that consumption is deduced from the practices (Mylan, 2015; Evans et al., 2012; RØPKE, 2009). McMeekin and Southerton (2012) point out that when the practical approach is used to understand consumption, it provides a focused view on the explanations of what people do in their daily lives and why they do it. 3 Intersections between MLP and theory of practices The MLP and practice theory are two emerging approaches that have become quite popular in recent years. However, while one has been more used to study production, the other has focused on the study of consumption (Brown, Vergragt, & Cohen, 2013, McMeekin & Southerton 2012). So, these approaches, according to Geels et al. (2015) and Southerton and Watson (2015), gained ground because of the promise to move beyond the supply and demand-driven solutions that dominated discussions on sustainable production and consumption (SPC). It suggests the reconfiguration of traditional research models by transitions in socio-technical systems with the aid of a multilevel perspective and practice theory. Although the relationship between these approaches is antagonistic on several occasions, Hargreaves, Longhurst, and Seyfang (2013) argue that they are not mutually exclusive: both are medium-range approaches that refuse to prioritise structure or agency in sociotechnical change processes, focusing on the structuring dynamics that drive both stability and system change. Southerton and Watson (2015) present other similarities. First, the units of analysis are conceptualised as heterogeneous configurations with elements of coevolution. Second, the agency is perceived as structured or in the form of routines, rules, habits, and conventions. Third, they address the analytical tension between the reproduction of current systems and normal ways of life and the emergence of alternatives that can lay the foundations for the transition. Finally, they share a procedural orientation that emphasises co-evolution, social interaction, alignment, and the struggle between old and new settings. However, the same authors also show their differences. The multilevel perspective is a heuristic perspective, with an open structure that can accommodate auxiliary theories to address its underdeveloped aspects, while practice theory has a specific theoretical lens. Also, there is the question of vertical and horizontal ontologies, which is not so relevant to the practical development of understanding and investigation, since there is practice theory that does not subscribe to a flat ontology, as well as analyses based on the multilevel perspective that tend to focus on horizontal relationships. Despite this, Geels (2011) suggests that the relationship with the regime (and with the niches) is not necessarily hierarchical, so it would be possible to consider abandoning the notion of hierarchy in the multilevel perspective. According to Hargreaves, Longhurst, and Seyfang (2013), given the great amount of overlap and shared interest between the two approaches, it is not surprising that some theorists sought to defend their distinctions and incompatibility, while others strove to integrate and hybridise these frameworks. However, neither of these extremes is intended here. Like Hargreaves et al. (2011) and Southerton and Watson (2015), the idea is to explore the crossroads between these approaches to understanding the changes in sociotechnical systems. Especially because there are points of intersection between regimes and practices that can help promote transitions to sustainability (Hargreaves et al., 2013). Geels (2011) defines sociotechnical regimes as the locus of established practices and associated rules that stabilise existing systems. Thus, Hölsgens et al. (2018) argue that the regime would be a system of interrelated practices because practices integrate the intangible sets of rules (meanings) and the use of tangible (material) artefacts. So, the elements of a sociotechnical system can be understood as consisting of specific practices performed by the respective actors or constellations of actors. Similarly, for Watson (2012), practices (that is, what people do) are partly constituted by the sociotechnical systems of which they are part, and these socio-technical systems are constituted and sustained by the continuous performance of the practices that compose them. Consequently, changes in sociotechnical systems only happen if the practices that incorporate these systems change and if these practices change, the sociotechnical system will also change. According to the author, any socio-technical transition is necessarily a transition in practices. Gram-Hanssen (2011) stresses that practices are influenced and connected to sociotechnical changes at different levels in systems, which means that change and stability in practices spread horizontally and vertically between practices. Hargreaves et al. (2013) set out to examine how niches, regimes, and landscapes in particular systems interact and impact everyday practices, and how practices and systems of practices intersect with niches, regimes, and landscapes. This analysis requires the understanding and investigation of three distinct lines: (i) transitions in regimes as they occur through interactions between niches, regimes, and landscapes; (ii) transitions in practices as they occur through change and continuity in different reproduction circuits; and (iii) how regimes and practices interconnect and clash over transitions. 4 Fast fashion versus slow fashion The clothing industry, for Niinimäki and Hassi (2011) and Sen (2008), is characterised by fast and short cycles, presenting continuous and periodic nature, enormous variety and volatile and unpredictable demand, in which the current style attracts people. It is what best represents fast fashion, a phenomenon that has revolutionised the fashion industry and is the best-known business model thanks to its performance in the global market in recent years (Gabrielli, Baghi, & Codeluppi, 2013; Mcneill & Moore, 2015). Kim, Choo, and Yoon (2013) point out that this system is distinguished by the absence of ties with a single designer or a specific place, belonging to the global fashion culture. Fast fashion combines two components: short-term production and distribution and products that follow the latest fashion trends (Cachon &; Swinney, 2011). Also, as Ekström and Salomonson (2014) explain, offering limited editions and low prices distinguish it. In this model, decisions about suppliers and purchases should be made quickly and the innovations introduced in stores as soon as possible, which is only possible because supply chains are agile (Bruce & Daly, 2006; Payne, 2011). Bruce and Daly (2006) also point out that consumers expect constant changes, and therefore new products have to be available frequently. Bly, Gwozdz, and Reisch (2015) and Law, Zhang and Leung (2004) point out that by the idea of obsolescence influences excessive and constant consumption, which has become prominent with fast fashion. The continuous changes in fashion contribute to the growth of discarded garments, insofar as there is a stimulus to consumption and fast fashion clothes are cheap and therefore perceived by consumers as disposable, causing tons of waste. (Ekstöm & Salomonson, 2014; Joung & Park-Poaps, 2013; Payne, 2011; Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013) This configuration of the fashion industry, according to Niinimäki and Hassi (2011) and Pedersen, Gwozdz, and Hvass (2016), with extensive use of resources, short life cycles, excess consumption and increasing volume of waste generates many negative impacts. The rampant social, cultural and environmental problems make this industry unsustainable (Craik, 2015; Kozlowski, 2013). Based on this, the studies on fast fashion are divided into two approaches: one oriented to producers and the other oriented to consumers (Gabrielli, Baghi, & Codeluppi, 2013). According to Boström and Micheletti (2016), on the supply side, there are considerable governance challenges, considering the variety of actors and national contexts involved. On the demand side, consumers are increasingly distancing themselves from the contexts of textile and clothing production, which means that more efforts are needed to inform and engage the public about the impacts of their consumption practices on sustainability. The challenges of sustainability in the fashion industry are deeply rooted in business models and patterns of consumption of fast fashion, so much so that one of the biggest obstacles to sustainability is the speed of the clothing lifecycle (Pedesen & Andersen, 2015). There are many barriers to sustainability that hinder the development of a sustainable fashion system, some of which are macro-oriented, such as globalisation; while others are micro- oriented, such as attitudes, behaviours, and concerns about consumer aesthetics (Ertekin & Atik, 2015). Although fashion is not the only industry struggling against social and environmental problems, its challenges depend largely on the characteristics of this sector (Pedersen & Andersen, 2015). Boström and Micheletti (2016) explain that the textile and clothing industry is one of the most polluting in the world and that making it sustainable involves several interrelated and complicated topics. One approach consistent with the need to change the current fashion scene is slow fashion, which addresses a variety of issues related to the production and consumption of clothing (Vincent, 2017). In contrast to fast fashion, which is quantity oriented, slow fashion emphasises quality through a slower production and consumption cycle (Jung & Jin, 2016). The slow fashion movement emerged as a response to the cycles of fast fashion and the unsustainable growth of the fashion industry (Henninger, Alevizou, & Oates, 2016). However, as one learns more about slow fashion, it becomes clear that it is not just another term for ethical fashion or the antithesis of fast fashion, but a process that directs the textile and apparel industry toward more production (Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013). The slow fashion movement proposes to retake the quality values of garments, rather than quantity, offering more durable items that do not follow the trends dictated by fashion (Joy & Penã, 2017; Watson & Yan, 2013). There is also concern about how clothes are made (Pookulangara & Shephard, 2013). According to Henninger and Singh (2017), it is based on sustainable values, considering social, environmental and economic aspects to reduce the impact of the fashion industry. The term slow fashion is used to identify sustainable fashion solutions, based on the repositioning of design, production, consumption, use and reuse strategies (Clark, 2008). In other words, it is a sustainable approach to reduce the fashion cycle through production and consumption (Fletcher, 2012; Mcneill & Moore, 2015). Aakko (2013) and Jung and Jin (2016) emphasize that slow fashion emerged as an alternative to the socially and environmentally unsustainable practices resulting from the fast- paced, fast fashion cycle and as a means to systematically change this mentality. Often, therefore, it is described as the inverse of fast fashion (Lai, Henninger, & Alevizou, 2017). However, while "fast" and "slow" are antonyms, Fletcher (2010) explains that in the context of the slow culture there is no opposition between these words because they represent distinct worldviews with economic logic, business models, different values, and processes. For Pookulangara and Shephard (2013) this becomes increasingly clear, as slow fashion is a process that changes the direction of the textile and clothing industry to incorporate decisions that are more conscious at all levels from the production of fibres to use. In this sense, Fletcher and Groose (2011) argue for the change in the infrastructure of the industry, since slow fashion does not mean doing business, as usual, designing classic clothes and planning longer terms for the supply of raw materials. It goes beyond that and represents a break from current industry practices. In a complementary way, Petersen and Riisberg (2017) argue that radical changes will have to occur in financial, social and ecological systems to arrive at new-shared values that are not based on the prevailing ideology of economic growth. 5 Transitions to sustainable fashion The sociotechnical system of fashion, which involves the production, distribution, and consumption of clothes, is composed of suppliers, factories, universities, research centres, government regulations, work organisation, users' practices, energy infrastructure, water infrastructure, meanings cultural and symbolic, infrastructure for distribution and technology. This socio-technical system interacts with other systems, such as agriculture or chemistry. In the scheme, which represents, for example, beliefs, routines, norms, and standards of doing something, the mainstream logic is that of fast fashion. It means that the standard is to manufacture/sell/buy cheap clothes that follow the latest fashion trends (Cachon & Swinney, 2011). Nevertheless, there are slow-fashion niche initiatives that try to break through the regime's barriers, such as small businesses or nongovernmental organisations, that promote more sustainable practices. In the case of businesses, this would involve the use of materials from renewable sources or fibers produced in better working conditions (Fletcher & Groose; 2011); library of clothes (Zamani, Sandin, & Peters, 2017); production on a smaller scale and locally (Fletcher & Groose, 2011); appreciation of more artisanal processes (Aakko, 2013); upcycling and downcycling (Niinimäki, 2013). There is also pressure from the landscape, such as the change of values in this system, influenced, for example, by denunciations of work analogous to slavery and, in Burke's view (2013), by the Rana Plaza accident in 2013, a building with several factories clothing in Bangladesh. The tension promoted by the niche and the landscape destabilise the regime and offer the chance of transition from fast fashion to slow fashion. This approach is usually a global model that maps the entire transition process, so it tends to give less attention to actors (Geels & Schot, 2007), as consumers and users, and it is necessary to use practice theory to understand better how changes to sustainable practices. Despite the recent interest in the diversity, richness, and complexity of everyday life, dress practices have not yet been achieved. Even in fashion studies, the focus tends to be on how trends emerge instead of a reflective discussion about what and how people dress and what kind of role the fashion system plays in those practices (Skjold, 2016). Sant'anna (2014) says that clothing provides the exercise of fashion. Fletcher (2012), however, goes further. For her, if fashion is relevant to its time and context, then social action, that is, the wearing practice will also shape fashion. It is especially evident when the street style, that is, the way clothes are worn on the streets, invades the catwalks. Based on this point of view, it is reflected in how fashion can become more sustainable through the incorporation of slow fashion in dress practices. For this, it is necessary to make some considerations. First, in general, people change their way of dressing when there are changes in their lives, such as entering the job market or finding a partner (Skjold, 2016); or in periods of instability or crisis, which result in conservative purchases, with a return to solid values, classicism and conformism (Jones, 2005; Vicente-Richard, 1989). Here, it is worth questioning that "events" would make or did practices change. A second point, according to Crane (2013), is that fashion contributes to redefining social identities by assigning new meanings to artefacts. In this sense, one investigates how meanings, artefacts, and abilities interact with one another and form the practices of dress. Finally, dressing practices are linked to other practices such as washing and ironing (Moon et al., 2013), and the durability of clothing can be promoted through use practices (FLETCHER, 2012). Thus, it is necessary to question the relations of the practices of the dress with other practices and the relation of the care with the clothes with the practices of dress. Also, the most important question may be to understand the relationship between consumption and dressing practices and how slow fashion can contribute to changing dressing practices and, consequently, consumption. It would be possible by reducing consumption through more conscious purchases or by altering it with alternative means of acquiring "new" clothing, such as in thrift shops, bartering with friends, revitalising clothes, or even renting in a clothing library. These observations contribute to understanding how dressing practices can change over time and become more sustainable. 6 Conclusion The multi-level perspective and practice theory has been widely used for the analysis of transitions to sustainability. Despite their differences, they have many similarities, and so there are several efforts to understand their crosses. Here, our idea was to understand how these approaches could be aligned to make fashion more sustainable. Considering that one is more production oriented, while the other for consumption, the use of the two approaches would provide a view of the whole, in spite of the complexities of a sociotechnical system. That is, how a fast fashion regime can become a slow fashion regime and how dressing practices can abandon the ideals of fast fashion and move toward slow fashion. It is because, although the studies of transitions are focused on the analysis of transitions that have already occurred, in fashion this has not happened yet. One can say that there are initiatives to make fashion more sustainable. However, the current configuration of the fashion system is very complex, especially because it has several elements distributed around the world, which allows the fast fashion regime to be dominant. Other points include the existence of other schemes, such as haute couture, and the distribution of this system, which allows changes in sub-regimes in some places and in others not. The same holds true for dressing practices, which are strongly influenced by cultural aspects and identity. We believe that a gradual and organic change is possible, considering that dressing practices are part of the fashion system and that there are other practices related to both dressing and fashion production. These practices interact with each other, but also relate to niches, regimes, and landscapes. Moreover, the greater the interaction, the greater the possibility of a transition.

7 References Aakko, M. (2013). Artisanal and slow: the case of Anna Ruohonen. In K. Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion: new approaches (pp. 56-67). Helsinki: Aalto ARTS Books. Axsen, J., Tyreehageman, J., & Lentz, A. (2012). Lifestyle practices and pro-environmental technology. Ecological Economics, 82, 64-74. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2012.07.013 Bly, S., Gwozdz, W., & Reisch, L. (2015). Exit from the high street: an exploratory study of sustainable fashion consumption pioneers. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(2), 125-135. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12159 Boström, M., & Micheletti, M. (2016). Introducing the Sustainability Challenge of Textiles and Clothing. Journal of Consumer Policy, 39(4), 367-375. doi:10.1007/s10603-016-9336- 6 Brown, H., Vergragt, P., & Cohen, M. (2013). Societal innovation in a constrained world: theoretical and empirical perspectives. In M. Cohen, B. Halina, & P. Vergragt (Eds.), Innovations in sustainable consumption: new economics, socio-technical transitions and social practices (pp. 1-29). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar. Bruce, M., & Daly, L. (2006). Buyer behaviour for fast fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 10(3), 329-344. doi:10.1108/13612020610679303 Burke, Jason. (2013). Bangladesh factory collapse leaves trail of shattered lives. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jun/06/bangladesh-factory-building-collapse- community Cachon, G., & Swinney, R. (2011). The value of fast fashion: quick response, enhanced design, and strategic consumer behavior. Management Science, 57(4), 778-795. doi:10.1287/mnsc.1100.1303 Clark, H. (2008). Slow + fashion - an oxymoron - or a promise for the future …? Fashion Theory, 12(4), 427-446. doi:10.2752/175174108X346922 Craik, J. (2015). Challenges for Australian fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(1), 56-68. doi:10.1108/JFMM-03-2014-0017 Crane, D. (2013). A moda e seu papel social: classe, gênero e identidade das roupas. 2end ed. São Paulo: Editora Senac São Paulo. Ekström, K., & Salomonson, N. (2014). Reuse and recycling of clothing and textiles: a network approach. Journal of Macromarketing, 34(3), 383-399. doi:10.1177/0276146714529658 Ertekin, Z., & Atik, D. (2015). Sustainable markets. Journal of Macromarketing, 35(1), 53- 69. doi:10.1177/0276146714535932 Evans, D., Mcmeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainable consumption, behaviour change policies and theories of practice. In A. Warde, & D. Southerton (Eds.), The habits of consumption. Helsinki: Open Access Book Series of the Helsinki Collegium of Advanced Studies. Fletcher, K. (2010). Slow fashion: an invitation for systems change. Fashion Practice, 2(2), 259-266. doi:10.2752/175693810X12774625387594 Fletcher, K. (2012). Durability, fashion, sustainability: the processes and practices of use. Fashion Practice, 4(2), 221-238. doi:10.2752/175693812X13403765252389 Fletcher, K., & Grose, L. (2011). Moda & sustentabilidade: design para mudança. São Paulo: Editota Senac São Paulo. Gabrielli, Veronica; Baghi, Ilaria; Codeluppi, Vanni. Consumption practices of fast fashion products: a consumer‐ based approach. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, v. 17, n. 2, p. 206-224, 2013. doi: 10.1108/JFMM-10-2011-0076 Geels, F. (2002). Technological transitions as evolutionary reconfiguration processes: a multi- level perspective and a case-study. Research Policy, 32, 1257-1274. Geels, F. (2004a). From sectoral systems of innovation to socio-technical systems. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 897-920. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.01.015 Geels, F. (2004b). Understanding system innovations: a critical literature review and a conceptual synthesis. In B. Elzen, F. Geels, & K. Green (Eds.), System innovation and the transition to sustainability: theory, evidence and policy (pp. 19-47). Cheltenham, Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing. GeelS, F. (2005). Co-evolution of technology and society: the transition in water supply and personal hygiene in the Netherlands (1850-1930) - a case study in multi-level perspective. Technology in Society, 27(3), 363-397. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2005.04.008 Geels, F. (2006). Major system change through stepwise reconfiguration: a multi-level analysis of the transformation of American factory production (1850-1930). Technology in Society, 28(4), 445-476. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2006.09.006 Geels, F. (2010). Ontologies, socio-technical transitions (to sustainability), and the multi-level perspective. Research Policy, 39(4), 495-510. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2010.01.022 Geels, F. (2011). The multi-level perspective on sustainability transitions: responses to seven criticisms. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions, 1(1), 24-40. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2011.02.002 Geels, F., & Kemp, R. (2007). Dynamics in socio-technical systems: typology of change processes and contrasting case studies. Technology in Society, 29(4), 441-455. doi:10.1016/j.techsoc.2007.08.009 Geels, F., & Schot, J. (2007). Typology of sociotechnical transition pathways. Research Policy, 36(3), 399-417. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2007.01.003 Gram-Hanssen, K. (2011). Understanding change and continuity in residential energy consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1) 61-78. doi:10.1177/1469540510391725 Halkier, B., & Jensen, I. (2011). Methodological challenges in using practice theory in consumption research: examples from a study on handling nutritional contestations of food consumption. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 101-123. doi:10.1177/1469540510391365 Halkier, B. (2013). Sustainable lifestyles in a new economy: a practice theoretical perspective on change behavior campaigns and sustainability. In M. Cohen (Ed.), Innovations in sustainable consumption: new economics, socio-technical transitions and social practices (pp. 209-228.). Cheltenham: Edward Elgar. Halkier, B. (2017). Questioning the ‘gold standard’ thinking in qualitative methods from a practice theoretical perspective: towards methodological multiplicity. In M. Jonas, B. Littig, & A. Wroblewski (Eds.), Methodological reflections on practice oriented theories (pp. 193-204). Cham: Springer International Publishing. Halkier, B., Katz-Gerro, T., & Martens, L. (2011). Applying practice theory to the study of consumption: theoretical and methodological considerations. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 3-13. doi:10.1177/1469540510391765 Hargreaves, T. (2011). Practice-ing behaviour change: applying social practice theory to pro- environmental behaviour change. Journal of Consumer Culture, 11(1), 79-99. doi:10.1177/1469540510390500 Hargreaves, T., Haxeltine, A., Longhurst, N., & Seyfang, G. (2011). Sustainability transitions from the bottom-up: civil society, the multi-level perspective and practice theory. CSERGE Working Paper, No. 2011-01. Hargreaves, T., Longhurst, N., & Seyfang, G. (2013). Up, down, round and round: connecting regimes and practices in innovation for sustainability. Environment and Planning A, 45, 402-420. doi:10.1068/a45124 Henninger, C., Alevizou, P., & Oates, C. (2016). What is sustainable fashion? Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 20(4), 400-416. doi:10.1108/JFMM-07-2015-0052 Henninger, C., & Singh, P. (2017). Ethical consumption patterns and the link to purchasing sustainable fashion. In C. Henninger, P. Alevizou, H. Goworek, & D. Ryding (Eds.), Sustainability and fashion: a cradle to upcycle approach (pp.103-126). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Hölsgens, R., Lübke, S., & Hasselkuß, M. (2018). Social innovations in the German energy transition: an attempt to use the heuristics of the multi-level perspective of transitions to analyze the diffusion process of social innovations. Energy, Sustainability and Society, 8(8), 1-13. doi:10.1186/s13705-018-0150-7 Jaeger-Erben, M., & Offenberger, U. (2014). A practice theory approach to sustainable consumption. GAIA - Ecological Perspectives for Science and Society, 23(3), 166-174. doi:10.14512/gaia.23.S1.4 Jones, Sue. (2005). Fashion design: manual do estilista. São Paulo: Cosac Naify. Joung, H., & Park-Poaps, H. (2013). Factors motivating and influencing clothing disposal behaviours. International Journal of Consumers Studies, 37, 105-111. Joy, A., & Peña, C. (2017). Sustainability and the fashion industry: conceptualizing nature and traceability. In C. Henninger, P. Alevizou, H. Goworek, & D. Ryding (Eds.), Sustainability and fashion: a cradle to upcycle approach (pp.31-54). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2014). A theoretical investigation of slow fashion: sustainable future of the apparel industry. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 38(5), 510-519. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12127 Jung, S., & Jin, B. (2016). From quantity to quality: understanding slow fashion consumers for sustainability and consumer education. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 40(4), 410-421. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12276 Kim, H., Choo, H., & Yoon, N. (2013). The motivational drivers of fast fashion avoidance. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(2), 243-260. doi:10.1108/JFMM-10- 2011-0070 Kozlowski, A. (2013). Sustainability driven innovation and fashion design. In K. Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion: new approaches (pp. 134-145). Helsinki: Aalto ARTS Books. Kozlowski, A., Searcy, C., & Bardecki, M. (2018). The redesign canvas: fashion design as a tool for sustainability. Journal of Cleaner Production, 183, 194-207. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2018.02.014 Kuijer, L., & Jong, A. (2009). A practice oriented approach to user centered sustainable design. The Japan Society of Mechanical Engineers. Lai, Z., Henninger, C., & Alevizou, P. (2017). An exploration of consumers’ perceptions towards sustainable fashion – a qualitative study in the UK. In C. Henninger, P. Alevizou, H. Goworek, & D. Ryding (Eds.), Sustainability and fashion: a cradle to upcycle approach (pp. 81-102). Cham: Palgrave Macmillan. Law, K., Zhang, Z., & Leung, C. (2004). Fashion change and fashion consumption: the chaotic perspective. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 8(4), 362-374. doi:10.1108/13612020410559966 Mcmeekin, A., & Southerton, D. (2012). Sustainability transitions and final consumption: practices and socio-technical systems. Technology Analysis & Strategic Management, 24(4), 345-361. doi: 10.1080/09537325.2012.663960 Mcneill, L., & Moore, R. (2015). Sustainable fashion consumption and the fast fashion conundrum: Fashionable consumers and attitudes to sustainability in clothing choice. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 39(3), 212-222. doi:10.1111/ijcs.12169 Moon, K., Youn, C., Chang, J., & Yeung, A. Product design scenarios for energy saving: a case study of fashion apparel. International Journal of Production Economics, 146(2), 392-401. doi:10.1016/j.ijpe.2013.02.024 Mylan, J. (2015). Understanding the diffusion of sustainable product-service systems: insights from the sociology of consumption and practice theory. Journal of Cleaner Production, 97, 13-20. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2014.01.065 Niinimäki, K. (2013). Tenents of sustainable fashion. In K. Niinimäki (Ed.), Sustainable fashion: new approaches (pp. 12-31). Helsinki: Aalto ARTS Books. Niinimäki, K., & Hassi, L. (2011). Emerging design strategies in sustainable production and consumption of textiles and clothing. Journal of Cleaner Production, 19, 1876-1883. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2011.04.020 Payne, A. (2011). The life-cycle of the fashion garment and the role of australian mass market designers. The International Journal of Environmental, Cultural, Economic, and Social Sustainability, 7(3), 237-246. doi:10.18848/1832-2077/CGP/v07i03/54938 Pedersen, E., & Andersen, K. (2015). Sustainability innovators and anchor draggers: a global expert study on sustainable fashion. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 19(3), 315-327. doi:10.1108/JFMM-08-2014-0059 Pedersen, E., Gwozdz, W., & Hvass, K. (2016). Exploring the relationship between business model innovation, corporate sustainability, and organisational values within the fashion industry. Journal of Business Ethics, 1-18. doi:10.1007/s10551-016-3044-7 Petersen, T., & Riisberg, V. (2017). Cultivating user-ship? Developing a circular system for the acquisition and use of baby clothing. Fashion Practice, 9(2), 214-234. Pookulangara, S., & Shephard, A. (2013). Slow fashion movement: understanding consumer perceptions - an exploratory study. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 20(2), 200-206. doi:10.1016/j.jretconser.2012.12.002 Reckwitz, A. (2002). Toward a theory of social practices - a development in culturalist theorizing. European Journal of Social Theory, 5(2), 243-263. doi:10.1177/13684310222225432 Røpke, I. (2009). Theories of practice - new inspiration for ecological economic studies on consumption. Ecological Economics, 68(10), 2490-2497. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.05.015 Sant’anna, M. (2014). Teoria de moda: sociedade, imagem e consumo. 2end. ed. São Paulo: Estação das Letras e Cores. Schatzki, T. (1996). Social practices: a wittgensteinian approach to human activity and the social. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Shove, E. (2010). Beyond the ABC: climate change policy and theories of social change. Environment and Planning A, 42, 1273-1285. doi:10.1068/a42282 Shove, E. (2012). Habits and their creatures. In A. Warde, & D. Southerton (Eds.), The habits of consumption. Helsinki: Open Access Book Series of the Helsinki Collegium of Advanced Studies. Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 43-64. doi:10.1177/1469540505049846 Shove, E., & Pantzar, M. (2005). Consumers, producers and practices: understanding the invention and reinvention of Nordic walking. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(1), 43-64. doi:10.1177/1469540505049846. Skjold, E. (2016). Biographical wardrobes - a temporal view on dress practice. Fashion Practice, 8(1), 135-148. doi:10.1080/17569370.2016.1147700 Southerton, D. (2013). Habits, routines and temporalities of consumption: from individual behaviours to the reproduction of everyday practices. Time & Society, 22(3), 335-355. doi:10.1177/0961463X12464228 Southerton, D., Olsen, W., Warde, A., & Cheng, S. (2012). Practices and trajectories: a comparative analysis of reading in France, Norway, the Netherlands, the UK and the USA. Journal of Consumer Culture, 12(3), 237–262. doi:10.1177/1469540512456920 Southerton, D., & Watson, M. (2015). Multi-level perspective and theories of practice: a mistaken controversy? Mobile Lives Forum. Access in: 4th of May 2017. http://en.forumviesmobiles.org/arguing/2015/11/25/multilevel-perspective-and-theories- practice-mistaken-controversy-2972 Strengers, Y. (2012). Peak electricity demand and social practice theories: reframing the role of change agents in the energy sector. Energy Policy, 44, 226-234. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2012.01.046 Vincent, A. (2017). Breaking the cycle: how slow fashion can inspire sustainable collection development. Art Libraries Journal, 42(1), 7-12. doi:10.1017/alj.2016.42 Vicente-Richard, F. (1989). As espirais da moda. Rio de Janeiro: Paz e Terra. Warde, A. (2005). Consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 5(2), 131-153. doi:10.1177/1469540505053090 Warde, A. (2014). After taste: culture, consumption and theories of practice. Journal of Consumer Culture, 14(3), 279-303. doi:10.1177/1469540514547828 Watson, M., & Yan, R. (2013). An exploratory study of the decision processes of fast versus slow fashion consumers. Journal of Fashion Marketing and Management, 17(2), 141-159. doi:10.1108/JFMM-02-2011-0045 Watson, M. (2012). How theories of practice can inform transition to a decarbonised transport system. Journal of Transport Geography, 24, 488-496. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2012.04.002 Zamani, B., Sandin, G., & Peters, G. (2017). Life cycle assessment of clothing libraries: can collaborative consumption reduce the environmental impact of fast fashion? Journal of Cleaner Production, 162, 1368-1375. doi:10.1016/j.jclepro.2017.06.128

Acknowledges: This work was conducted during a scholarship supported by the International Cooperation Program PROBRAL CAPES/DAAD at the Federal University of Ceara and at the Technisch Univerität Berlin. Financed by CAPES – Brazilian Federal Agency for Support and Evaluation of Graduate Education within the Ministry of Education of Brazil. Also the participation of the Prof. José Carlos Lázaro is supported by CNPq (AVG Process 451078/2018-7)